Commercial Breeding for Laboratories

My hon. Friend presents a worrying situation caused by having so few animal inspectors. The UK used to lead the world in animal testing, banning animal testing for cosmetics some 15 years before the EU. Does he agree that we should use this opportunity to once again make the UK a world leader by banning animal testing? Mr Alexander Stafford intervened to question whether the increasing number of dogs and horses being used in animal testing was appropriate given their physiological differences from humans. He urged for a ban on such tests due to these discrepancies.

Ms Emma Hardy highlighted the increasing number of animal experiments in the UK, noting that over 3 million scientific procedures were conducted on animals in 2021. She expressed concerns about the poor-quality results produced by animal research and cited examples where reliance on animal testing led to adverse outcomes for humans. Ms Hardy also discussed the limitations of using animals in biomedical research due to species differences and argued that non-animal methods, such as organ-on-a-chip technology, are more predictive of human responses and could contribute significantly to the UK's economy. There seem to be an awful lot of presumptions in the opening of the Minister's speech, including presumption that we all benefit from testing on animals. I gave two examples, including a case where animals were used for testing, but when a dose 500 times lower was used on humans, it killed five.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful presentation. On that point, is it not increasingly the case that animal experimentation is just bad science and, worse still, is actually hindering the development of treatments that benefit humankind?

Concerned about the suffering of animals bred for testing, Kerry McCarthy endorsed calls to move beyond the three Rs and highlighted five incremental steps: restricting non-medical animal tests, limiting types of licensed tests, banning beagle breeding for toxicity tests, increasing transparency through data sharing and avoiding duplication, and promoting alternatives to animal testing.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out this extremely important issue to the House. Does he agree that it is crucial that the work taken forward should be based on evidence, and that as such we should have a public scientific hearing with support from early-day motion 278?

Ms Ferrier expressed concern about the breeding of animals for laboratory testing, noting that the Government's response to a petition did not address this issue. She highlighted concerns over the financial cost to taxpayers and the lack of scientific reliability in animal testing results compared to human trials, citing examples like HIV vaccine tests. She called for investment into non-animal reliant methods and technologies and urged the Government to urgently publish a strategy phasing out animal testing.

Ms Gibson expressed concerns about the unethical, cruel, immoral use of animals in experiments. She stated that animal experiments fail to predict human responses with accuracy, citing a statistic from experts indicating that 90% of new medicines fail in human trials due to unreliable animal data. She urged for a rigorous public scientific hearing and called for the redirection of resources away from animal testing towards non-animal methods. Ms Gibson also highlighted that the UK Government's commitment to science is incompatible with current practices, given the outdated laws governing medical research.

Rosie raises concerns over commercial breeding practices that cause significant trauma and suffering to animals. She calls for a review of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, advocating for new legislation to address modern technological advancements in animal welfare.

Ms Huq highlighted the unethical conditions in which beagles are bred for laboratory use, citing distressing footage and testimonies from constituents. She argued that modern alternatives such as non-animal methods and advanced technology should replace outdated practices regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Ms Huq also expressed concern over the demonisation of protesters advocating against animal testing.

The Labour party believes that unnecessary and prolonged suffering of defenceless animals has no place in a civilised society. Sarah Jones highlighted the increase in animal testing, the lack of transparency on licence applications, and the continued permissibility of 'severe suffering'. She mentioned over 3 million procedures involving living animals in 2021, with around 1.7 million being experimental procedures. There were also 160,000 animals involved in severe or non-recovery procedures.

Britain must reclaim its position in animal rights protection and ensure a review of the entire field of animal testing to protect animals. Taiwo is concerned about the potential rollback on animal welfare due to the Retained EU Law Bill, which could remove important regulations such as the ban on cosmetic animal testing.